HC Deb 30 June 1914 vol 64 cc217-53

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £63,263, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896." [Note.—£45,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. JAMES HOPE

"I beg to move, "That Item A (Salary of the First Lord of the Treasury) be reduced by £1,000."

After the moving words of the Prime Minister, which come home to me with special force, because I have an intimate knowledge of the theatre of the crime which he has just denounced, I feel reluctance in bringing forward an Amendment which has the appearance of a personal attack upon himself. But I think before I have done he will see that it is only as a matter of Parliamentary technique that his name is coupled with the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I move the Amendment standing in my name to reduce the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury on account of his failure to take steps proper to his office, and I think necessary, in view of recent circumstances, to take effective action to ensure the maintenance of a high standard of single-minded disinterestedness in the public service of this country. Indeed, I am well aware that a purely party interpretation may be put upon this Amendment, and that it may be ascribed to a desire to gain a party advantage. I say, if that be so, it is in the power of the Prime Minister to deprive us of any party advantage that might follow from it. If we are able to make out a case that action has not been taken to meet the growing danger to the public service of this country, and if the Prime Minister acknowledges that and takes the necessary steps, he will at once and by one speech deprive us of any party advantage we might make out of this matter. If, on the other hand, he refuses to meet us in what I hope to be able to prove to be necessary, then, of course, we have a public right to comment upon his refusal, and to draw such inferences from it as the facts suggest. I want to again refer to questions I put to the Prime Minister in the course of last month. The first was:— Whether the Prime Minister is prepared to issue a Treasury Minute with regard to speculation by officials embodying, with or without qualification, the recommendations of a recent Select Committee of the House of Lords? And the right hon. Gentleman's answer was:— I am not aware that any occasion has arisen since my speech on 19th June last year which requires that public servants should be reminded of their obligations in this respect. I then asked him:— May I take it that the view of the Government is that no rule need to be laid down as to the right of Ministers and other salaried officials to speculate at will? The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In the speech I have referred to I laid down the rules myself"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1914, col. 1705, Vol. LXII.] I further questioned him whether he was prepared to take action to enforce the rules he himself laid down. I asked him on May 21st:— Whether he is prepared to issue a Treasury Minute embodying the principles laid down by himself last year with regard to investment and speculation by the holders of public office? The Prime Minister: In my statement of 19th June, 1913, to which the hon. Members refers, I expressed doubt as to whether it was practicable to lay down a code of rules of conduct for Ministers and persons in official positions with regard to these matters, although I was able to lay down certain principles governing typical cases. I think it is sufficient that I should now reaffirm those principles for the guidance of the Departments, and I see no necessity for, or advantage in, issuing a Treasury Minute on the subject.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1914, col. 2131, Vol. LXII.] The whole case I wish to lay before the Committee is that that is necessary, and that it would be an advantage in dealing with these matters that the right hon. Gentleman, as First Lord of the Treasury, should deal with them by Treasury Minute. I must begin by referring the Committee to a document published on the 1st May last in the newspapers of this country. It was a Report signed by five peers who had been investigating certain charges made against one of their own order.

The CHAIRMAN

I must remind the hon. Members at this early stage, as I already explained to the hon. Member for Sheffield himself, that the responsibility as I understand it of the First Lord of the Treasury upon this Vote is confined to the power to issue a minute dealing with Civil servants. Anything beyond that comes within the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, and therefore must be dealt with in the House and not in Committee of Supply. So that on this occasion we are limited to the question of dealing with the case of Civil servants.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Yes, but the body whose views I am about to quote made a recommendation in which they laid down that is was necessary that a general law applicable to the whole public service should be passed, and before laying down that they referred to certain circumstances that led them to that conclusion. I, therefore, when I come to the recommendations, shall confine myself strictly to the action that the right hon. Gentleman as First Lord should take. My purpose in referring to the Committee was only to illustrate the need which had arisen. It is necessary to say a word about the personality of the five peers who signed this Report. Two of them had served the office of Lord Chancellor, one had served the office of Public Prosecutor, another was a prominent head of one of the great Civil Departments of the public service, and, although I do not know whether it is relevant, but I may mention that three out of the five—the majority of the Committee—were known to be supporters of the Liberal party. If there be any tribunal from which there might be expected a sound conclusion on complicated evidence, I submit it was such a tribunal as that which came to the conclusions I am now about to allude to. The subject of their investigations had been charges made against another Nobleman who held high public office, and it is fair to say that on some of the points charged against him he obtained an absolute and honourable acquittal. But he was convicted of grave error. He was shown to have put himself in a position of temptation, namely, that his public duty might be biassed by his private interests—

The CHAIRMAN

That may or may not be so; but certainly we here do not raise matters affecting a Member of another House who is not here to reply or deal with the question, and I only suggest to the hon. Member not to read anything of his own into a report in reference to a Member of another House of Parliament who has no opportunity, and is not competent to deal with if in this House at all.

Earl WINTERTON

On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Whitley, whether your attention was called to the fact that a question was allowed in this House by Mr. Speaker in reference to Lord Londonderry? Do we understand your ruling to be that no question can be raised reflecting upon the conduct of a Member of the other House?

The CHAIRMAN

I do not know what the Noble Lord is referring to, but it seems to me to be a matter of common practice in this House, and the hon. Member for Sheffield is aware of it, and I only wish to guard against reading something into a certain Report which might be open to be challenged. He is entitled, I think, in support of his argument to give any relevant matter from the Report of the Committee.

Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT

The hon. Member was referring to certain charges which have been brought against Lord Murray as to whether they were well founded or not. Would it be in order to review matters of that kind as to whether these charges were well founded or not upon this Vote?

The CHAIRMAN

That is why I suggest that for the purpose of the hon. Member's arguments, he should only deal with what the Committee said.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I accept that ruling and I do not believe what I said went one inch beyond what the Committee did find. I will confine myself to what the Committee did find. They said that this Nobleman disregarded what he ought to have remembered, that he might have to procure as Chief Whip the ratification of the contract between the British Government and the English company, which would favourably affect the value of the American and all other Marconi shares. He now recognizes that he ought not to have bought these shares. That is what I meant when I said that this Nobleman put himself in a position of temptation in which his public duty and private interests might be in conflict, and that is not a word more than was said by the Committee. It is true the Committee found that Lord Murray put himself in that false position as a matter of inadvertence rather than design, and they acquitted him on the ground of inadvertence of dishonourable conduct. They further found that he had shown a most unwise reticence, but he is not alone in this matter. There were other Ministers concerned, and all that was said of this Nobleman applies to one other Minister, who had an interest in the same company which he acquired at the same time and on the same information.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now going into a matter which does not concern the Committee of Supply. That may be a proper matter for the consideration of the House, and I think it is a matter which has already been dealt with by the House and may be dealt with again, but it does not concern the First Lord of the Treasury in his capacity as First Lord. In this discussion we must confine ourselves to the duties of the right hon. Gentleman connected with the Civil Service, and not with Ministers. There are other occasions on which those matters can very properly be dealt with.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I was about to argue that we could deal with this matter in connection with the Civil Service on the ground that the Ministers concerned are those who control a Department of the Civil Service.

The CHAIRMAN

Yes, and that is why I allowed the hon. Member to go so far as he has done, but he cannot raise other matters which do not properly come before the Committee of Supply. The hon. Member can argue from one to the other, but he must not proceed to develop the one which is out of order.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I alluded to a certain Minister in consequence of what you had said because that Minister was not here to defend himself, and I was afraid I might be taunted with want of courage if I neglected to say the same thing about a Minister who was here and could defend himself. With regard to an ex-Minister who is not here, obviously I cannot say anything, and all I would say—

The CHAIRMAN

May I put it this way to the hon. Member? I was asked by certain right hon. Gentlemen whether they would be entitled to address the Committee on this subject, and I said, "Certainly not." Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see that I must not allow matters to be raised in regard to which I said I could not allow a reply.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I think if you had allowed me to finish my sentence you would have seen that there is nothing out of order. All I said was that I do not want to go out of my way to make any racial attack. Efforts have been made to that end. If there is one thing I have a hatred for it is the spirit of anti-semitism, which may be excused by the circumstances of some countries, but can never be justified here. That is really all I have to say on that subject. [Laughter.] Why that remark should lead to hilarity is not a matter which is easy to understand. I will now come to the conclusion to which this body came. They said:— We think it is within our province to express our strong opinion that there should be henceforth an inflexible rule to preclude those who hold any public office from entering into any speculative transactions in stocks or shares in any circumstances whatsoever, and that this rule should be by them inculcated on their subordinates both by precept and example. The evils that may arise from a violation of this principle are incalculable. The object of my Motion is to appeal to the Prime Minister to take some steps in his capacity as First Lord of the Treasury to inculcate that rule authoritatively on the Civil Service of this country. I do not think there can be any question as to the need of this and the dangers that might arise. I have known the case of an officer in the Intelligence Department which came to my notice some years ago, who, at a time of a European crisis deliberately sold all the stocks and shares he possessed in order that when the war which he expected broke out he might buy them in again at a lower level. He played the part of a "bear" against the interests of peace in the time of an emergency, and I am happy to say that the result was that he had to buy in again at a very much higher price than he sold out. The same question arises in every department of the public service. Supposing some official of the Irish Office, from information which came to him officially, came to the conclusion that it was impossible for the Home Rule Bill to pass, and that thereupon he made certain speculations. I think it would be agreed that that would be a grossly improper transaction arising out of his official information.

4.0 P.M.

Supposing an official of the Treasury knew that there would be some remission of indirect taxation on certain articles, and he thereupon acquired an interest in companies dealing with those articles. That is a possible and a very obvious danger. I presume the Prime Minister will say that the difficulty is as to what practical steps can be taken. I have taken some trouble to look into what is known as the discipline of the Civil Service. I have asked questions upon the subject, and I have found it very difficult to get an answer. I find that it depends not upon Statute, but upon custom, and the custom has been that the Treasury, in the name of the First Lord, issues a document, either in the nature of a warning or injunctions known as Treasury Minutes, which, in fact and practice are binding upon the Department, the ultimate result being, I presume, dismissal by the prerogative of the Crown. I submit that this is a very proper and fitting opportunity for a Treasury Minute in this direction. I have here, though I do not suppose it is necessary for me to quote it, a Treasury Minute of Mr. Gladstone's with regard to giving away official information. It begins in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury, which he was then, and it is a strong admonition to all public officials throughout the service to be careful and reticent in imparting official information. That principle as regards military secrets afterwards crystallised, as is well known, in the Official Secrets Act, 1899, since amended in 1911. But, of course, if the Prime Minister thinks it better to proceed by other means, such as an Order in Council, that will equally satisfy the purpose I have in view. I suggest that in this Minute there should be a reaffirmation of the principles he himself laid down last year. I think it necessary to draw the attention of the Committee to what those were. I find that there were six principles enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman:— The first and the most obvious is that Ministers ought not to enter into any transaction whereby their private pecuniary interests might, even conceivably, come into conflict with their public duty. Again, no Minister is justified under any circumstances in using official information, information that has come to him as a Minister, for his own private profit or for that of his friends. Further, no Minister ought to allow or to put himself in a position to be tempted to use his official influence in support of any scheme or in furtherance of any contract in regard to which he has an undisclosed private interest. Again, no Minister ought to accept from persons who are in negotiation with or seeking to enter into contractual or proprietary or pecuniary relations with the State any kind of favour. Fifthly, Ministers should scrupulously avoid speculative investments in securities as to which, from their position and their special means of early or confidential information, they have or may have an advantage over other people in anticipating market changes. Sixthly, Ministers should carefully avoid all transactions which can give colour or countenance to suspicion. These were the principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman last year, and, with regard to two of them, I say, and anyone who will read carefully the Report I have referred to must agree, that they were lately infringed. I suggest that the Prime Minister should issue a Treasury Minute embodying these principles, and I think that he ought to go further. I think that he ought to say something as to actual speculation itself. After all, it is a very weighty recommendation of the Committee that under no circumstances should speculation be allowed. Of course, he will say that there is a difficulty in defining speculation. Take it at its narrowest. Take it as it is understood by experts—that is, either buying what you cannot pay for or selling what you have not got. If he would go even on those narrow grounds and embody that in a Treasury Minute with a reaffirmation of his own principles laid down last year, it would go far in issuing a warning against dangers which are certain to arise in the public service. Naturally, I do not wish to be dogmatic on a point like this. All I say is that the Government, and the First Lord of the Treasury in particular, ought to take this recommendation into account and promulgate it in the most authoritative way possible. It is not to be supposed that up and down the Civil Service the members, unless reminded, will remember the words he spoke in this House on 19th June, 1913. If they remember the transactions at all which arose at that time they will have a vague idea in their minds that certain persons in high places were guilty of grave indiscretions, but that the whole matter blew over and no principle was authoritatively affirmed, either by this House or by the Government, to prevent a repetition of such indiscretions. There is a difference between these dangers and any that have arisen—at any rate for a long time in the past. I have read up the history of similar cognate controversies to this, and they turn on such matters as using influence in favour of friends or constituents or retaining situations or investments or directorships which might produce a conflict with their public duty, but there have not been to my knowledge for a very long time a case of anyone in a high public station putting himself—inadvertently it may be: inadvertently as the Committee found—in a false position in which his private and public interests were in conflict. I believe that for generations past the tone and temper of the Civil Service—

Mr. R. HARCOURT

On a point of Order. I understood you to rule that it was not permissible to discuss the investments of Ministers, on the ground that Ministers had requested from you, in the Chair, the right to make a statement on the subject, and that you had refused. All I ask you—not with a view to stopping the Debate—is this: If the hon. Gentleman makes that case, will there be an opportunity for Ministers and others to discuss the matter?

Mr. DIXON

On the point of Order. May I ask if my hon. Friend would be in order if he put his argument, and then took as an example the case of Mr. Taylor, a Post Office official, who was degraded and lost his salary for the same offence as other high persons had committed. Are we to have one law for the rich and another for the poor?

The CHAIRMAN

I will deal with that point when it arises. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs, I have already explained to the Committee that we are not entitled on this occasion to deal with anything other than the advisability or otherwise of issuing a Minute dealing with Civil servants. That is all that comes within our purview to-day. The hon. Member at first accepted my warning, and has been trying not to depart from it.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

I do not mind.

The CHAIRMAN

I shall not allow matters to be raised by the mover which are not proper subjects for debate, and to which, therefore, no reply can be given.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

On the point of Order, I certainly am not protesting against any line taken up by the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to ask whether, if the hon. Member is allowed to pursue the line he has started, I shall be permitted, I will not say to make a defence against the suggestions he is making, but also to quote other illustrations which in my judgment are more pertinent, and which have occurred in the last twenty years under the Salisbury Administration?

The CHAIRMAN

That is just a matter I shall certainly not allow.

Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS

Then do not allow him.

The CHAIRMAN

My duty is to confine the Committee of Supply to the proper business, and that is to discuss the administrative action of the Department concerned in the Vote set down. The Vote we are dealing with now is that for the First Lord of the Treasury. His administrative powers in that office are very limited, but they do cover, as I understand it, the possible issuing of a Minute with regard to the conditions of the Civil Service. The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to that point.

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

On the point of Order. May I ask for the purposes of this Debate whether a Minister of the Crown is to be regarded as a Civil servant? My reason for asking you this is that when I moved a Motion some years ago that Ministers of the Crown should not be public company directors the distinction was taken that Civil servants cannot hold their office and be company directors, whereas Ministers of the Crown can, and there were forty-four public servants who were company directors.

The CHAIRMAN

I have already explained that matters which come within the purview of the Prime Minister must be dealt with in the House and not in Committee of Supply.

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

May I, with great respect, again ask you whether it is not the rule that these Treasury Minutes made by the First Lord in his capacity of First Lord of the Treasury and a Treasury official himself only apply to Members of the Civil Service as distinct and holding a different tenure from Ministers of the Crown?

The CHAIRMAN

That is exactly what I have said more than once.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I cannot help thinking that series of points of Order came rather unfortunately, because I was saying that for generations past the Civil Service of this country has been singularly pure. Of course, if we go back some way, we shall find that was not always so; and that which took place in generations past may easily, if a watch is not kept, recur to the lasting detriment of the public life of this country. The House of Commons has a duty in this matter, but the First Lord of the Treasury has a special duty, and I think that the reform would come well from him. Whatever we may think of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and however disastrous we may think his complaisance to rash colleagues or masterful lives, one thing we must admit, and that is that no sordid taint has ever rested on his name. We all know that from the point of view of material advantage he would have done far better had he never set his foot on the stony or miry ways of politics. He is the inheritor of the traditions of Gladstone, and, as such, I appeal to him to do something in the direction I have indicated to keep the public life of the Civil Service of this country what it has been for long past. If he responds to this appeal, it is quite true that he will, as I said at the beginning, deprive us of any party advantage which we might obtain from this Motion, but he will also have discharged a great and, as we believe, an imperative duty in securing the integrity of the public service and the purity of public life.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)

This is the first occasion in the nearly seven years I have held my present office on which any Motion has been made to reduce my salary, and perhaps it is about time it was done. But I must say that the ground on which the hon. Gentleman has taken this new departure is singularly subtle. You, Sir, have ruled that the only question which is relevant to our proceedings to-day is whether I or anybody else who is responsible as executive administrator of the Treasury ought or ought not to have taken some action, not in regard to my colleagues, but in regard to the Civil Service. I wish to say in the plainest, broadest terms that, in my opinion, no case whatever has been made out for the suggestion of even a suspicion that members of the Civil Service have violated any one of the rules which I laid down in this House last year, or, even in its widest or broadest interpretation, the concluding passage of the paragraph in the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords which has been read.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I never said anything of the sort.

The PRIME MINISTER

We are dealing entirely with the Civil Service, and the hon. Gentleman is, in effect, asking the House to pass a Vote of Censure upon me because I did not do what would have been an insult to the Civil Service, whose honour I cherish just as much as I cherish my own, and because I did not go out of my way gratuitously and unwarrantably, without any occasion of any sort or kind, to remind them of the binding force of the obligation which I believe every member of the Civil Service is perfectly prepared to observe. The attack the hon. Gentleman makes is not on me, but upon the Civil Service. His Motion is totally unnecessary and uncalled for, unless someone can suggest there has been, on the part of members of the Civil Service, some disposition to evade or violate rules, the validity and importance of which we all admit. He has produced no such case, no shadow of ground for alleging that I, as head of the Treasury, or my right hon. Friend beside me, for all practical purposes the executive head of the Treasury, ought to have gone out of our way by way of precaution to suggest that Civil servants were likely to do a thing we had no reason to believe they ever would do. That is a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman's Motion. He has, of course, more or less deftly woven into the texture of his speech matters which have no relavance to the Motion at all. It would have been different if it were possible for accuser and accused to meet on equal terms, but we are here in Committee of Supply.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

Give us the opportunity. May I point out there has been no occasion when the persons who were accused—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Chief Justice—were present here in this House during the Debate, except when he himself made a statement?

The CHAIRMAN

That is exactly what I shall not allow in Committee of Supply. I did not allow it to begin, and I certainly will not allow it to develop.

The PRIME MINISTER

The only charge I have to deal with is whether, in my character as executive head of the Treasury, I ought, by Minute or otherwise, to suggest to the Civil Service what I do not believe it to be in the least necessary to suggest to any one of them. I laid down last year, on a totally different matter, Rules which I thought would be applicable to persons holding public offices of this kind. Every one of these Rules I believe to be well founded in reason and experience; I adhere to them, and I have every reason to believe that they have been scrupulously observed in every branch of the service. The hon. Gentleman has called attention to the concluding paragraph of the Report of the Committee which sat in another place, which did not deal with the Civil Service at all, and in which the Noble Lords who were parties to that Report expressed an opinion that henceforth it should be an inflexible rule to preclude those who hold any public office from entering upon any speculative transaction in stocks or shares under any circumstances whatsoever. It is not for me—nor, indeed, would this be an appropriate occasion, nor would I be in order if I took advantage of it for that purpose—to criticise language of that kind. I will only point out how difficult it is to preclude anyone indulging in any speculative transaction by laying down a rule, the exact limits and ambit of which it is almost impossible to define, and the osbervance of which, in practice, it is equally impossible to enforce. Why speculative transactions in stocks or shares alone? There are speculations in land and commodities.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

And in titles.

The PRIME MINISTER

I very much doubt whether in practice it would be possible for us to define or enforce, with regard to Members of this House, Ministers of the Crown, soldiers and sailors, and members of the Civil Service, any rule couched in such wide and ambiguous terms. But that is not the question before us. The only question before us is whether a case has arisen in which it is the duty of the heads of the Treasury to issue to Civil servants of the Crown injunctions and rules required by some pressing public emergency or some great public scandal. As far as my knowledge of the Civil Service goes, I emphatically deny that any occasion has arisen for doing anything of the kind. I believe Civil servants in these matters regulate their transactions with as much purity of motive and regularity of practice as any set of His Majesty's subjects, and as long as I have the honour to be head of the Civil Service, I will jealously safeguard their honour from any imputations of that kind.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I venture to think the Prime Minister was scarcely well advised in trying to put upon my hon. Friend a desire to attack members of the Civil Service. No one who listened to the speech of my hon. Friend could have thought for a moment that he had any such desire as to attack members of the Civil Service, and, indeed, I do not see how the Motion can be so construed in any sense whatever. I am quite sure of this, that on this side of the House there is no less respect for the members of the Civil Service than on that, and you will not find in any speech which has been made on this side of the House any desire to underrate or belittle the standard of honour or capacity of members of the Civil Service. That is not the purpose of this Motion, and I cannot understand why it should be made a matter of violent and heated Debate. It is really a simple, straightforward matter. Here is a very strong Committee of persons who happen to be Members of the House of Lords. They held an inquiry into a matter about which I am not going to say one single word. I have indeed already expressed my opinion upon it. They held an inquiry, and at the end they arrived at a very strong conclusion which they expressed in the strongest possible words. I will read those words once again:— In conclusion, we think it is within our province to express our strong opinion that there should be henceforth an inflexible rule to preclude those who hold any public offices, from entering upon any speculative transactions in stocks or shares under any circumstances whatsoever. Surely that is a matter well worth the attention of this House. It is a very important recommendation made by very important people, and one that this House would not be doing its duty if it did not take it into consideration, and discuss whether something should not be done by the Prime Minister of this country to carry out the recommendation. I really do not quite understand whether the Prime Minister says it is a rule of the Civil Service or not. He began by saying it would be a gross insult to suggest that it should be made a rule of the Civil Service, and I understood him in conclusion to state it was very doubtful whether it was or could be made a rule. Evidently the two propositions cannot be true. It cannot be so clear that this has never been done, and is not worth considering, and also doubtful whether this rule ever did obtain in the Civil Service. I can quite understand the Prime Minister, considering that recommendation, might think it doubtful whether the wording of it was adequate for the purpose. I am not expressing any opinion on that, but clearly in substance no one can doubt that it is an important recommendation. It is exceedingly difficult to lay down, as the Prime Minister says, an exact rule as to what is or is not a harmful speculation in the Civil Service. I agree it is most diffi- cult, but there is no reason whatever for doubt that certain speculations are of a very deplorable character, and will do great harm if indulged in by members of the Civil Service. The Committee were dealing with the subject matter of their inquiry. The question was whether some rule should not be laid down to prohibit speculation of that character spreading in the Civil Service. Surely it is an absurdity for the Prime Minister to get up and say that no case has been made out for raising this point, that you cannot bring any accusation against the Civil Service, and cannot, therefore, ask him to issue any Minute. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I say that that is really an absurdity, because a very important body has pronounced that some such rule ought to be made.

I quite agree that the ruling that has just been given prevents us going into the question whether that was a proper conclusion to be arrived at at that particular inquiry. I should be very glad indeed to discuss that point if it were in order, but I wish to abide very strictly by the ruling, and I do not wish to discuss it for one moment. It may have been a right or a wrong conclusion. I do not understand the Prime Minister to quarrel with the substance of the recommendation, but his case is that it is a rule, apart from the verbal question being raised as to its ambit—which has always been observed, and now because a Committee says here that, in some circumstances which have arisen, which we do not discuss on the present occasion, and which seem to make it essential to reaffirm the rule even in a stronger form than it has ever existed, surely that is a very proper thing for this House to consider, and for my hon. Friend to bring before it. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that such a rule would be unenforceable. I do not agree with him. If he means the substance of the rule, I believe it is not only enforceable, but that it ought to be enforced. The position of an ordinary Civil servant is one of very great difficulty and temptation, and it is a great thing that they are practically free from charges of this kind, for when great contracts are entered into by the Government, it is quite possible for persons interested in those contracts to make offers of advantage to the Civil servants. I believe it is perfectly well known that it is done. The advantage has very often taken the form of a suggestion that they should speculate on the Stock Exchange on certain information. That is a matter which this Committee ought to consider and see whether some stricter rule or some extra precaution ought not to be laid down to deal with that case. As the Prime Minister has already refused to make any kind of advance to meet the case put for ward by my hon. Friend, and as he said quite broadly, for some reason at which we may guess but which we are not quite clear about from his own speech, he absolutely declines to do anything with the recommendations made by this very strong and impartial Committee, I, for one, shall vote with my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

I desire to support the Reduction moved by my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister very skilfully turned the attack, as usual, from one against himself and the Cabinet to an attack on the Civil Service. He pretended that it was an attack on the Civil Service. He knows perfectly well, and so does everyone in the Committee, that there has been no attack on the Civil Service whatever this afternoon.

Mr. BOOTH

What is the Motion?

Major ARCHER-SHEE

The recommendation which he was asked to embody in a Treasury Minute was one come to after very mature consideration by a Committee which consisted, among others, of two of the greatest living lawyers in England at the present time—two ex-Lord Chancellors—another distinguished lawyer and two other peers of distinguished public service and of great reputation for impartiality. In the circumstances it seems rather absurd for the Prime Minister to say that their recommendation is not to receive any attention whatever at the hands of the Government. Of course, the real reason is that if a Treasury Minute were issued embodying the recommendations it would be laughed at by the whole Civil Service and by the whole of the country, because they would know that it arose from the conduct of Ministers in their Marconi transactions. The Chairman has ruled that we are not to go, except to a very limited degree, into the question of the Marconi transactions, therefore I do not wish to do so this afternoon. But I would like to point out—I think this is in Order—that there has been a case of a Civil servant who has been very heavily punished quite recently. I allude to the case of Mr. Taylor, a Post Office servant. Mr. Taylor bought shares in the open market. He bought only a few pounds worth of shares. He had no hints or tips, and no advice of a financial nature was conveyed to him from any contractor. He did not get these shares indirectly through a contractor at a private price, or at a price at which the public could not get them. He did not make £1,000 of unearned increment in two days.

Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM

On a point of Order—

The CHAIRMAN

I was about to rise on a point of Order.

Sir A. MARKHAM

It is a low attack that we cannot answer.

The CHAIRMAN

In so far as that is a question of Departmental discipline it does not arise on this Treasury Vote. As the hon. Member was developing he was clearly going on lines which I have already said we could not travel over in this Debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hitting below the belt!"]

Major ARCHER-SHEE

I agree that in raising the question of the unearned increment I was rather trenching on the matters which you, Sir, said were out of Order. In addition, Mr. Taylor, who is a Civil servant, was not in a position to largely influence the ratification of the contract. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am giving this as an illustration of the necessity of some rules being clearly laid down for the Civil Service. [Interruption.] When this Civil servant bought these shares, no one bought the shares because he did so. He did not influence other people in making them buy shares, whereas the other transactions undoubtedly did so.

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. and gallant Member follows that line, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat. [Interruption.] I would ask hon. Members to be good enough to leave the maintenance of Order to me.

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL rose—

The CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will restrain himself. I am now in the course of dealing with the point of Order, and I must dispose of that. I have told the hon. and gallant Member, and I am sure he under- stands what the point is, that he must not further develop it outside the lines I have laid down.

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

Now, Sir, I have a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member turned round to hon. Gentlemen behind me and in my hearing said, "You are telling dirty lies!" I ask if that is a Parliamentary expression?

Major ARCHER-SHEE

May I say that while I have been speaking several most insulting and mendacious expressions have been addressed to me both from behind me and from the benches opposite?

The CHAIRMAN

If any such expression reaches me, from whoever it comes, I shall deal with it. [Interruption.] Again I say to hon. Members, Will they be good enough to leave the maintenance of order to me and not to intervene themselves?

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

I reported the matter to you immediately the moment I could.

Major ARCHER-SHEE rose—

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

Sit down, Sir!

The CHAIRMAN

Perhaps both hon. Members will please resume their seats when I rise. I have dealt with that matter and it is closed.

Sir F. BANBURY rose—

The CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Baronet rise to a point of Order?

Sir F. BANBURY

Yes, Sir. I wanted to ask you, on a point of Order, whether it would be in order for me later on, or for anyone else, to refer to any instances in the Civil Service, to which I understand we are strictly limited, in which Civil servants have not, perhaps, quite conformed to the rules which I believe have been laid down by the Prime Minister, and therefore show that it is necessary that some sort of direction should be given to Civil servants?

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Baronet wishes to speak, I will deal with the point of Order when his turn comes.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

At any rate, I may make this allusion to Mr. Taylor's case. He has been very heavily punished, and although now he has been reinstated he has not been refunded the money which he would otherwise have received if he had retained his position. I only mention that case as illustrating the necessity of laying down some rules which people can clearly understand. Mr. Taylor complied with one of the rules laid down by the Prime Minister in his speech on the 19th June, 1913. He came forward and said, "I did buy these shares." That was in contrast to some others.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I rise to a point of Order. I have not raised any point of Order at all against the pursuance of the Debate on the lines which hon. Members have challenged. The only claim I have made is that if they are permitted to do so, I also shall not only be permitted to defend myself, but shall also be permitted to give other illustrations which, in my judgment—[Interruption.] I ask, as a point of Order, whether it is fair, under the cover of discussing the Civil Service, to really discuss cases which you, Sir, regard as being out of order without giving an opportunity to Ministers to defend themselves?

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think I can say more on that point than I have already said. I do not intend to allow irrelevancies of Debate to take place in Committee of Supply. If the hon. and gallant Member, either by illustrations or otherwise, departs further from my ruling, I shall at once ask him to resume his seat.

Earl WINTERTON

On a point of Order. Is not a simple way out of the difficulty, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so anxious to speak, for him to rise as soon as he can catch your eye?

Major ARCHER-SHEE

The Prime Minister has refused to issue this Treasury Minute because in his reply to my hon. Friend he said that he had laid down certain rules himself in his speech of 19th June last year. It is quite true that he laid down those rules in that speech, but Civil servants are not going to look at that speech, and in a very short time that speech no doubt will be entirely forgotten. In the case of Mr. Taylor he did comply with one of the rules laid down by the Prime Minister in that speech. He came forward and said, "I have bought these shares, and I therefore make announcement of that so that there may be no deception about it at all." Mr. Taylor was very hardly treated in this case. He came forward; he owned the fault he had committed fully, and he ought to be given back the pay which is being withheld from him The Prime Minister, in the speech to which I have referred, laid down three rules. The first was that:— Ministers ought not to enter into any transaction whereby their private and pecuniary interests might, even conceivably, come into conflict with their public duty. It is very important to embody that in a Treasury Minute, so that anybody may know hereafter what are the considered opinions of the Prime Minister. I doubt whether anybody knows that they are the considered opinions of the Prime Minister, in view of what has happened. As regards the second and third rules which the right hon. Gentleman laid down, they are both of extreme importance. In these days of corruption outside—we know that a very serious case is going on at the present time and is sub judice—[An HON. MEMBER: "Then do not refer to it!"]—it is very important that a very clear rule should be laid down for the Civil Service and every other service. The Prime Minister ought not to be deterred by any feeling that if he were to issue these rules it would be construed, by implication, as having some reference to the conduct of some of his own colleagues. I therefore beg to support the reduction.

Mr. PONSONBY

I hope the Committee and the country will note the way in which the time of Parliament is being utilised. We have got, in a very heavy and busy Session, an afternoon in which the Opposition have been able to choose what Vote they please and what Debate they would like to bring before the House.

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid it is irrelevant to deal with the conduct of business which is not a matter open for discussion in Committee of Supply.

Mr. PONSONBY

The intention of the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) and the hon. Member (Mr. James Hope) was clear enough. The Noble Lord said they did not intend to make any attack on the Civil Service. Against whom was their attack made? It was perfectly clear from the speeches we have heard that they desired to attack, not by direct means, but by inference and innuendo, certain people who were unable to defend themselves here and now. They have chosen this occasion, as the course of the Debate has shown, to rake up in the dustbins of personality and see if they could not find a little of the mud which they threw last Session.

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that is raising from another point of view the very question I have been deprecating all the afternoon. I think I informed the hon. Member (Mr. James Hope) last week what the limitations of this discussion would be, and he quite understood and accepted them on that occasion.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

In consequence of what you have said I am sure you will allow me to say that what I understood from your ruling was that, in making suggestions and recommendations as to what ought to be done, I must confine myself as to what can be done by the First Lord of the Treasury. I never understood that you would not allow me, in quoting the recommendations of this Committee, to state the facts which led them to make those recommendations.

Mr. PONSONBY

I regret that this attack should have been made on the Civil Service. I think it is extremely unfair that a body of public servants, who are really a model to the whole world in the way they do their business, should have been used in this matter, but the Opposition would not stop at attacking or prostituting any service, just in order to throw a stone at my right hon. Friend. That is their main object. But the more stones they throw at him the better he likes it. What I regret is that our time should be wasted in this way when we have an opportunity of discussing things of real importance.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am sorry I was not present when the Prime Minister gave his reasons for not accepting the Motion, but I am informed that he gave as his reason the fact that, in his opinion, the Civil Service did not require any recommendation of this sort, and that it would be an insult to them to make it. I should like to assert my belief in the absolute integrity of the Civil Service, and I do not think that if the Prime Minister had followed the recommendations of such a body, in no way a partisan body as the Committee which sat in another place, the Civil Service would have taken it in any kind of way as an insult to them. Rather, it would have been taken as a clear direction to new people entering the Civil Service of what had always been the main principle which had guided the Civil Service, which should always guide the Civil Service in the future. I think his reason for not putting into force this recommendation is of the very weakest description. There have been instances recently, I admit very few and isolated, where members of the Civil Service have violated the Rules which have always been laid down for their guidance. That is beyond question, because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert Samuel), who was at that time Postmaster-General, laid down, very rightly, what Rules should regulate the conduct of Civil servants, and he actually degraded this particular gentleman because he had done something which was outside those particular Rules. My Noble Friend said that tips were often asked for, and requests for information as to something that was going on which might lead someone to buy at a low price, instead of a high one, were often sought for. I was for a great number of years in the City, and I can assure the Prime Minister that there is a large number of people who are anxious to make money, and who are anxious to obtain from anyone they may happen to know any information which they can turn to profitable account. Therefore a Rule of this sort would be a benefit to the Civil Service, and in no way an insult. We are not all built upon the hard lines of the Prime Minister. We very often find ourselves knowing we ought to say "no," and yet not having the courage to do so.

The Prime Minister sets himself up in the course which he ought to pursue, and pursues it without deviation, but some of us are not so strong, and it would be a very excellent thing if I happened to be a Civil Servant, and knew someone acquainted with a member of the Stock Exchange, and I was asked whether I knew that certain negotiations were going on, and whether or not they would be likely to lead to any result. If I said you must not ask me these questions I know the sort of answer I should have. "You must not say anything, but as an old friend, you might tell me." Being weak and yielding, and different from the Prime Minister, probably I should give in, feeling all the time that I was doing wrong. In how much stronger a position should I be if I was able to say, "I should like to give you every information possible, but there is a Rule which was laid down by the Prime Minister only a few days ago. If you like I will send you a copy of it, and you will be able to see that it is impossible for me to oblige you." I should not like to presume to tell the Prime Minister anything, because I am sure he knows everything a great deal better than I do, but speaking from experience I can tell him that something of that sort is very often put into partnership deeds. It is very often put in that no individual member shall accept a Bill. That is done in order to enable weak people like myself to say to a man who comes and says, "Just back this bill for me," "I should love to do it, and I would do it, but I have an unyielding partner, like the Prime Minister, who would turn me out at once if I were to do such a thing, and, therefore, much as I should desire to do it, I cannot do it." My friend says, "Of course, I quite accept your decision."

That is all we ask that the Prime Minister should do. For the moment I am forgetting that there is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I sometimes wish I could forget it more often than I can, but for the purpose of the present Debate, I will forget all about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and deal solely with Mr. Taylor and the Prime Minister. In the interest of the Civil Service, it is essential that the Prime Minister should put into force some recommendation such as has been laid down by Lord Halsbury, and the Noble Lord who sat on that bench with him. Fortunately we are in Committee, when hon. Members can speak more than once. May I appeal to the Prime Minister to get up? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Is it because he cannot show that I am wrong? If so, I have nothing further to say. Sometimes it happens that when one Minister cannot answer another, he takes refuge in silence, but I have not noticed that that has been the habit of the Prime Minister. When he has a good case, he generally gets up and silences his opponent. I rather hope he will not rise, but unless he rises I shall feel bound to think that I have upset his argument, and that he has nothing further to say in defence of it. I rose with extreme reluctance, because I understood from an interruption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was going to speak, and I should not like to interfere with him. It would be interesting to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to say. He is always equal to the occasion.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The hon. Baronet did not hear the ruling that I should not be allowed to pursue the course followed by hon. Members opposite.

Sir F. BANBURY

I have not gone out of order in any kind of way. I am talking about what ought to happen to Civil servants under certain circumstances. I want to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks ought to be done to Civil servants under these circumstances. He occupies a very responsible position, and ranks next to the Prime Minister. He is never at a loss for an argument, and does not mind getting up, if he has a bad case, and making the best of it. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to get up, and show me where I have been wrong, and tell me what he thinks ought to be done to Civil servants who speculate on the Stock Exchange.

5.0 P.M.

Colonel SEELY

I desire to protest against the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Baronet. Under a debonair air he has concealed some very shrewd thrusts at the Civil Service, and the question, the only question, is whether now is the proper time to issue a warning, a manifesto, to the Civil Service against gambling, and against improper actions. The hon. Baronet has used a number of phrases, and I take one of them. He said that human nature is frail, and the whole burden of his speech was a veiled attack upon the Civil Service implying—I speak in all seriousness, for the Civil Service feel these matters acutely—that they have been acting in some way in the past which makes it necessary to issue a new manifesto. The Prime Minister has told us that in his judgment this is not the proper time to bring up that matter, but having been connected with the Civil Service for the last six years, and knowing a great deal of the inside of the Civil Service, I do say that any suggestion on the part of any Member of the House that now is the proper time to call the Civil Service to account, and to say, "We presume that you have been acting wrongly, that your private interest has conflicted with your public duty, and that, therefore, we think it necessary just at this moment to say, under pains and penalties, that you must not act wrongly again." That is wrong and unfair to the Civil Service. It is quite easy to see what is the point, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to allow the embarrassment in which they find themselves to lead them into an attack upon the Civil Service which, I dare say, they do not wish to make. From the course of the Debate it has been apparent in every speech, except in the case of the Mover, what the intention was. In their opinion this is the proper time to move a Vote of Censure upon Ministers of the Crown for their past action, and great was their surprise—I was surprised myself when it was found that it would be quite out of order to take any such course. That being the case, why take this opportunity of voting censure on the Civil Service who have done do wrong? It must be plain to anyone, after what has taken place, and after your very precise ruling, that any man who now votes for a reduction of the Estimate is voting censure on the Civil Service at large. I do protest against any such action. I am confident, speaking with some inside knowledge of the Civil Service, that it is as pure now as it has ever been in the past, that the standard of honour is as high as it has ever been, and that to take this opportunity of attacking them is unworthy of the House of Commons.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I make a personal explanation? I never made an attack on the Civil Service. I have stated the recommendation passed by the Lord Murray Committee, which was a good recommendation and should be written up on the entrance of every Civil Service office where anybody has any transaction to carry out in the public service. I might as well say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was making an attack upon the Army if the rules relating to mutiny were put up by him to warn soldiers. The Committee laid down an order which should be observed.

Colonel SEELY

On the point of Order. That is not so. The point taken by the hon. Baronet is a false point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] With your permission I wish to reply to it.

The CHAIRMAN

I would point out that the hon. Baronet rose to make a personal explanation.

Colonel SEELY

Then, Sir, I desire to make a personal explanation. I do not wish to attack the hon. Baronet in any way unfairly, but he knows very well that this particular recommendation of the late Lord Chancellor and others was based upon the action of Ministers of the Crown, and had nothing to do with Civil servants. The whole Inquiry had reference to the action of Ministers who cannot defend themselves to-day, and therefore any action we take to-day must be a vote of censure upon the Civil Service.

Lord HUGH CECIL

In all the speeches we have heard on the other side of the House, and notably that of the Prime Minister, it has been assumed that this is an insult to the Civil Service, and I understand that the main ground on which we are opposed is that to warn the Civil Service is an insult. The hon and gallant Member said that they are pure, and that there is no stain upon their honour, or some language of that kind, and that is the view of hon. Members behind him. Surely hon. Members are rather austere. I agree that public servants ought not to engage in speculative transactions, and I agree that it is most unfit that a public servant should do it, but I do not share the view that it is so disgraceful a thing for a public servant to engage in a speculative transaction on the Stock Exchange that merely to warn them not to do it is an insult to the Civil Service.

Mr. LEIF JONES

Would you warn all public servants?

Lord HUGH CECIL

Let us begin with State servants, and extend the warning in other directions. There have been times when we were afraid that the standard of public life was being lowered, but it is clear that hon. Gentlemen opposite have attained to a point of scrupulousness to which we could hardly aspire, and that they regard it as an imputation gravely dishonouring to the Civil Service so much as to warn them against doing what in fact the Lord Chief Justice and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have done.

The FIRST LORD Of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill)

Very unfair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Coward!"]

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS

Seeing that the Noble Lord ended up his speech with a very evident defiance of the ruling you gave, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, as a point of Order, whether you are going to sit there and do nothing, and if you have no power to protect yourself and the House against such conduct?

The CHAIRMAN

It was not in my power to prevent the Noble Lord in the last few words of his speech departing from the ruling I laid down. All it shows is that the whole of this Debate is disorderly. I would suggest to the Committee to dispose of it, and pass on to the next business.

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS

Is it not possible for us to send for Mr. Speaker and call his attention to the Noble Lord's conduct in deliberately acting in defiance of your ruling?

The CHAIRMAN

I have been a long time here, and I think I am competent to deal with the matter.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The Noble Lord thought fit to make an attack upon me in the last few words of his speech. Previous to that you had, on my appeal, stated that it was impossible for me to defend myself. I should like to know if that is the case now, seeing that the Noble Lord has disobeyed your ruling.

The CHAIRMAN

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is not necessary for me to intervene, for the reason that the Committee itself can judge as to the fairness of any transgression of order of that kind.

Mr. LEIF JONES

If in the closing words of an otherwise orderly speech, an hon. Member disregards your ruling, and in defiance of your ruling insults a Minister who cannot protect himself in consequence of your ruling, are we to understand that the Chair has no remedy?

The CHAIRMAN

The Chair will use his power if he thinks it is necessary to do so. But in the case of an unfair departure from my ruling the Committee is the judge of that, and it is not necesary for hon. Members to be continually taking that point.

Sir A. MARKHAM

The Noble Lord before he sat down, endeavoured to justify the attack that had been made from the other side of the House, on the ground that we ought not to be too high-minded and austere in regard to members of the Civil Service doing what Ministers have done, and he thought it would not be a reflection by hon. Members on the Civil Service to pass a Resolution giving a warning. The hon. Member for Finsbury has been leading this attack to-day, and the attack is made not with a view to reducing the Prime Minister's salary, or question- ing the Civil Service itself, but merely with the purpose of dealing with matters which you, Mr. Whitley, have ruled are entirely outside of order. Further than, that, I have never known on any previous occasion until this day that any Member of this House would take advantage of indirectly making an attack upon another Member who has no opportunity of replying to that. The House knows perfectly well that all those speeches are not addressed to the subject which is now before the Committee, but are entirely founded upon personal attacks.

I want to divert the issue, if I may, for I have ground of complaint against the Prime Minister in respect of Treasury Minutes which I asked him to issue. This was done before there was any Marconi case to refer to. In January last year I raised the question on several occasions in this House. I had no opportunity of raising it before on the salary of the Prime Minister. I have raised the question with respect to members of the Civil Service taking positions in private firms while members of the Civil Service. I gave the Prime Minister numerous cases where Civil servants had been taken from different Departments—the Admiralty and the War Office—to fill positions in armament firms and business firms with whom, as officials, they had had business relations. The Prime Minister stated in reply to various questions that I asked him the Treasury had no legal right under existing powers to prevent the acceptance of such positions by such gentlemen who had retired from the Service. Failing to get a satisfactory reply, I continued asking questions and the Prime Minister at last said that he thought it desirable that public servants who had retired from the Service should, before accepting such positions, communicate with the Minister of the Department in which they had served.

What I wish to ask is this: Has any Treasury Minute been sent out during this year or last year to Civil servants stating that in the opinion of the Government it is undesirable that any Civil servant should accept office or any position of trust or employment with any business firm which had a direct connection with the Department with which that Civil servant had been employed? I think it most desirable that the public servants of this country should not take from armament firms and others very large salaries when these firms have contracts with the Department of State from which these gentlemen have retired. I am not making any charge against individuals, because I think that, in the case of some of the very eminent men who were employed by the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Government, they cannot be expected not to better their position if they had an opportunity. But that is all the more reason why the Government should pay these servants sufficient to enable them to continue their duty at the Admiralty, the War Office, the Home Office, and also the Colonial Office. It is not desirable that employés of firms having contractual relations with those offices should be taken from those offices. I trust, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to tell us whether the Prime Minister who made the declaration to which I have referred, after saying three times that he would not make it, has caused any Treasury Minute to be issued.

Mr. CROFT and Major ARCHER-SHEE rose—

The CHAIRMAN

called on Mr. Croft.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

May I be allowed to state—

The CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member rise to make a personal explanation?

Major ARCHER-SHEE

I have been attacked and—

Mr. CROFT

I will give way to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield has thought fit to make an attack upon me with reference to the remarks which I have made. If he will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that what I said was perfectly in order, that I was making allusion to certain public facts which were known to the House and to the country, and, for which I may remind him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has—[Interruption.]—

Mr. CROFT

There were one or two phrases in the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite with which anybody on this side of the House would agree. The Prime Minister based the whole of the speech on the statement that such a Resolution as this must mean an insult to the Civil Service as a whole. If that is true, it must be equally true that when the Prime Minister, at the time of the grave difficulties which occurred in connection with the Army in Ireland, came down to the House and read out those rules for the future guidance of the Army, he was then insulting the Army as a whole. I think that if the House will look at this calmly, though I quite understand the feelings that have appeared this afternoon, it must agree that whatever the actual words may be, advice of this kind to Civil servants is on the whole good, and if anybody in his business, or the hon. Baronet in his business, was to issue a series of instructions as to what his employés were to do or not to do, how grotesque would be the suggestion that that was an insult!

Sir A. MARKHAM

I do not think that I should insult them the same as you do. They are honourable men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Baronet has had his say, and I must ask him not to make remarks across the floor of the House.

Mr. CROFT

I have said nothing which is in any way an insult to the hon. Baronet. I do not know what the feelings of his employés may be for him, but I have simply laid down that if he was to issue such instructions as I have mentioned, and to make them generally known to all his employés, I do not think that anybody would regard him as being any more insulting than anybody outside his business. But if instructions were advisable, either in connection with the Army or any other service, I do think that it is desirable that we should consider instructions in this case. I am not going to mention the name of anyone, but the House will agree that there was a Debate on this question. It was sufficiently important to have a Debate here, and to have a Committee in another place discussing the whole question. [HON. MEMBERS: "What question?"] The question as to the whole attitude of those who are employed by the State with regard to their private affairs and public engagements. The question was raised as to whether—[Interruption]. When I say something that is out of order doubtless I shall be called to order. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do not you ask the Gov- eminent to resign?"] This House had recently to debate a question of great importance in a similar connection, and I do think that it is possible that any Civil servant in future might say to himself, "Am I quite sure what is my duty in this respect?" If the hon. Member opposite agrees with that, surely there can be no answer whatever! We are trying to lay down general rules as to the conduct of all those who are receiving payment in connection either with the Civil Service or anything else, so that at any rate there may be no misunderstanding in future in the Departments by those who serve the State.

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

The Debate which has been proceeding is an extraordinary one. After my twenty-eight years' experience in this House I have never known an instance in the case of the First Lord of the Treasury nor of anyone moving to reduce his salary. Mr. Gladstone said that the duties of the First Lord of the Treasury were simply connected with Treasury purposes, and that they consisted in putting his seal to certain documents. However, the ingenuity of an hon. Member has been able to raise a very interesting and very instructive Debate on the First Lord's salary. When I listened to that Debate I recollected the story which was told in perfect seriousness some time ago. An assassin shot at a man who was supposed to be an enemy. He narrowly escaped hitting someone else, and apologised to the person whom he had narrowly escaped hitting. The hon. Members above the Gangway are apologising to the Civil servants. They wanted to hit the Prime Minister and they narrowly escaped hitting the Civil servants. This Debate has been interesting in another way. For the first time I have heard a gross, personal insult given to a judge of the High Court, notwithstanding the special rule of this House protecting him from disrespect. That has been passed unnoticed. A great many high considerations, not merely public, but personal, would prevent me in the slightest degree speaking with reference to your ruling, but I do say this, that when a horrible observation has been reported to you by me, which I heard, I think that some notice might have been taken of it.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now going back on a matter with which I have dealt as closed.

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

Yes, you dealt with it as closed, but I hold my own view. I am delighted that, after all the heat that has characterised these proceedings, there is now a great calm; I wish to improve that calm, and to show my kindness to everyone, even to my enemies. I see that the Front Opposition Bench is deserted. Where is the great Leader of the Opposition, the chivalrous man who should in a case like this come to protect the First Lord of the Treasury? He has not done so, but may I say what he might have said? So much impressed has he been with this Debate, he might say, so thoroughly desirable does he consider it that public life in all its purity should be maintained, that public life should be, like Cæsar's wife, above suspicion, that in any future Administration he will do what has been done in the present Administration—that he will extend the system of purity according to the rule, if he gets the chance, laid down in that Treasury Minute, so that no person in any public position of the Civil Service should in any degree put himself into a position in which his public interests would conflict with his private interests. When the right hon. Gentleman does so you can expect a good time. When he does so, we can expect, if he ever gets to that Treasury Bench, a Treasury Bench as pure as that Treasury Bench is on which there is not even one guinea-pig to adorn it.

The CHAIRMAN

As far as I can gather, the hon. and learned Member is himself now going outside what I have laid down.

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

I shall try to be very careful in future to avoid doing so. I ask that that Treasury Minute should be carried out, so that we shall never see, as I have seen, a Cabinet Minister, with three company directorships, promoting his own interests.

Mr. KELLAWAY

I regard this Debate as one of the most serious that have taken place during the time in which I have been in this House. An attack has been made this afternoon, through the Civil Service, on Members on the Front Bench. Obviously those who have spoken on that side have seen their danger, and every speaker who has got up has disclaimed any intention of attacking the Civil Service. But the Motion means nothing, and is utterly out of place, unless it is an attack. It is evident from the very nature of the opinions uttered by the hon. Member for Sheffield, and the way in which he was followed by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, that they intend to suggest that now is a good time to issue this new Minute against possible speculation by members of the Civil Service against which they thought it necessary to guard, and I am certain that that great and exceptional body of men in this country will resent the fact that a political party, in order to make political capital and attack political opponents, should put forward this Motion. The spectacle of Satan rebuking sin is always improving, but it is hardly more improving than the case of a railway director making a suggestion as to the private conduct of the Civil Service in this country. This is not the first time that the Noble Lord has been willing to use some outside person or service in order to attack a political enemy. I well remember the time when the Noble Lord tried to strike down a Liberal Home Secretary through the notorious Madame D'Angely, and I should think he would be glad to forget the time when he took up the case. And in this case he is willing to besmirch the reputation of the Civil Service of this country, in order that he may—

Major ARCHER-SHEE

Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the case of this woman?

The CHAIRMAN

I confess I did not follow what the hon. Member's point was. I think he understands the line I have laid down.

Mr. KELLAWAY

I make the point quite clear that the Noble Lord was seeking to make an attack upon the then Liberal Home Secretary, and, in the attack which he made, it was one of the rare occasions on which the Noble Lord made himself responsible for the honour of the individual whom he was championing.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. I never did anything of the kind. The incident is now seven or eight years old, but I am certainly ready to discuss it on the proper occasion, and I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward), who greatly assisted me in that matter, will be here.

The CHAIRMAN

Having seen the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I think he is clearly going beyond the limits of my ruling, and the matter is not relevant at all on the present occasion.

Mr. KELLAWAY

I will not pursue it further, but there is one other observation I desire to make with regard to the Noble Lord, who closed his speech on this question with a low, an unspeakably low, attack upon men whom he knew could not answer. The Noble Lord said there were certain things that certain members of the Civil Service would not do, and I may tell him that there are other things they would not do. One thing they would not do was indeed the means of preventing a public scandal, for they prevented Lord Salisbury from carrying through a scandalous transaction as regards Shaftesbury Avenue.

Colonel YATE

Attention has been called to the three Orders which the Prime Minister read to this House some weeks ago, and I think the whole House and the whole country were glad at the public censure which the right hon. Gentleman passed on the late Secretary of State for War.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member apparently has failed to realise that I ruled that we could not enter into any question of that kind, and we are dealing here solely with the question of issuing a Treasury Minute to the Civil Service.

Colonel YATE

I bow to your ruling, and I will make no more mention of it, except to express a hope that some Minute will be issued in respect of the Civil Service as to their future behaviour.

Mr. KELLAWAY

I rise to make a personal explanation. In referring to the Noble Lord, and to a certain transaction, I should have said the Charing Cross Road scandal.

Question put, "That Item A (Salaries. Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £1,000."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 274.

Division No. 141.] AYES. [5.35 p.m.
Amery, L. C. M. S. Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Pretyman, Ernest George
Anstruther-Gray, William Gibbs, George Abraham Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Gilmour, Captain John Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Baird, John Lawrence Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. Rolleston, Sir John
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Goldman, Charles Sydney Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Baldwin, Stanley Goulding, Edward Alfred Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Sanders, Robert Arthur
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Barnston, Harry Haddock, George Bahr Spear, Sir John Ward
Barrie, H. T. Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Hambro, Angus Valdemar Stewart, Gershom
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Bird, Alfred Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Blair, Reginald Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.) Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Hewins, William Albert Samuel Talbot, Lord Edmund
Bowden, G. R. Harland Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Boyton, James Hills, John Waller Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Bull, Sir William James Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Tickler, T. G.
Butcher, John George Horne, Edgar Touche, George Alexander
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Houston, Robert Paterson Tryon, Captain George Clement
Cautley, Henry Strother Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. Valentia, Viscount
Cave, George Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Kerry, Earl of Weigall, Captain A. G.
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Wheler, Granville C. H.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Larmor, Sir J. Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Lee, Arthur Hamilton Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) Wills, Sir Gilbert
Croft, Henry Page Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)
Denison-Pender, J. C. Mackinder, Halford J. Winterton, Earl
Dixon, C. H. Magnus, Sir Philip Wolmer, Viscount
Duncannon, Viscount Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Du Pre, W. Baring Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Newdegate, F. A. Worthington Evans, L.
Faber, George D. (Clapham) Newton, Harry Kottingham Yate, Colonel C. E.
Falle, Bertram Godfray Nield, Herbert Younger, Sir George
Fell, Arthur Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Foster, Philip Staveley Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) James Hope and Mr. G. Locker-
Gardner, Ernest Peto, Basil Edward Lampson.
NOES
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Burt, Rt Hon. Thomas Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Acland, Francis Dyke Byles, Sir William Pollard Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)
Adamson, William Carr-Gomm, H. W. Elverston, Sir Harold
Addison, Dr. Christopher Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)
Agnew, Sir George William Chancellor, Henry George Essex, Sir Richard Walter
Ainsworth, John Stirling Chapple, Dr. William Allen Esslemont, George Birnie
Alden, Percy Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Falconer, James
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Clough, William Farrell, James Patrick
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles
Armitage, Robert Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Ffrench, Peter
Arnold, Sydney Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Field, William
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Flavin, Michael Joseph
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Cory, Sir Clifford John France, Gerald Ashburner
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Cotton, William Francis Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Cowan, William Henry Gelder, Sir William Alfred
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Crooks, William Gill, Alfred Henry
Barnes, George N. Crumley, Patrick Gladstone, W. G. C.
Beale, Sir William Phipson Cullinan, John Glanville, H. J.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Beck, Arthur Cecil Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Goldstone, Frank
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)
Bethell, Sir John Henry Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Greig, Colonel James William
Black, Arthur W. Dawes, James Arthur Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Boland, John Pius De Forest, Baron Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)
Booth, Frederick Handel Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Bowerman, Charles W. Devlin, Joseph Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Brace, William Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. Hackett, John
Brady, Patrick Joseph Dillon, John Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)
Brocklehurst, William B. Donelan, Captain A. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Brunner, John F. L. Doris, William Hardie, J. Keir
Bryce, John Annan Duffy, William J. Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)
Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)
Haslam, Lewis Middlebrook, William Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Hayden, John Patrick Millar, James Duncan Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Hayward, Evan Molloy, Michael Roe, Sir Thomas
Helme, Sir Norval Watson Molteno, Percy Alport Rowlands, James
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Rowntree, Arnold
Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Runciman, Rt Hon. Walter
Hewart, Gordon Mooney, John J. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Higham, John Sharp Morgan, George Hay Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Morrell, Philip Scanlan, Thomas
Hodge, John Morison, Hector Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Hogge, James Myles Muldoon, John Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.
Holmes, Daniel Turner Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert Sheehy, David
Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Murphy, Martin J. Sherwell, Arthur James
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook
Hughes, Spencer Leigh Neilson, Francis Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) Nolan, Joseph Smyth, Thomas F (Leitrim, S.)
John, Edward Thomas Norman, Sir Henry Snowden, Philip
Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Norton, Captain Cecil W. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Nuttall, Harry Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Sutherland, John E.
Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Doherty, Philip Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John
Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney) O'Donnell, Thomas Thorne, William (West Ham)
Jowett, Frederick William O'Dowd, John Toulmin, Sir Georg
Joyce, Michael O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Kellaway, Frederick George O'Malley, William Verney, Sir Harry
Kelly, Edward O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Walton, Sir Joseph
Kenyon, Barnet O'Shee, James John Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Kilbride, Denis O'Sullivan, Timothy Waring, Walter
King, Joseph Palmer, Godfrey Mark Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) Parker, James (Halifax) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Parry, Thomas H. Webb, H.
Lardner, James C. R. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Pearce. William (Limehouse) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Leach, Charles Henry Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Levy, Sir Maurice Phillips, John (Longford, S. Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Pollard, Sir George H. Wiles, Thomas
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Lundon, Thomas Pratt, J. W. Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Lyell, Charles Henry Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Lynch, A. A. Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Williamson, Sir Archibald
Maclean, Donald Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Primrose, Hon. Neil James Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Pringle, William M. R. Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Radford, George Heynes Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
M'Callum, Sir John M. Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Winfrey. Sir Richard
M'Kean, John Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Wing, Thomas Edward
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Reddy, Michael Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Yeo, Alfred William
M'Micking, Major Gilbert Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E). Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Manfield, Harry Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Marks, Sir George Croydon Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Mason, David M. (Coventry) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Meagher, Michael Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Robinson, Sidney

Original Question again proposed.

The PRIME MINISTER

As I promised to give another day for the discussion of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which forms part of this Vote, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.